4.1
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP
are summarized in Table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
Graphical presentations
of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring results are shown in Appendices B and C respectively.
Table 4.1 Summary Table of 1-hour TSP
Monitoring
Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Concentration (µg/m3) |
Action Level, µg/m3 |
Limit Level, µg/m3 |
|
|
Average |
Range |
||||
|
June 2014 |
AMS1 |
17 |
14 - 23 |
381 |
500 |
|
AMS4 |
18 |
14 - 23 |
352 |
||
|
July 2014 |
AMS1 |
43 |
14 - 192 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
31 |
14 - 72 |
352 |
||
|
August 2014 |
AMS1 |
15 |
4 - 23 |
381 |
|
|
AMS4 |
20 |
14 - 35 |
352 |
||
Table
4.2 Summary Table of 24-hour TSP Monitoring
Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Concentration (µg/m3) |
Action Level, µg/m3 |
Limit Level, µg/m3 |
|
|
Average |
Range |
||||
|
June 2014 |
AMS1 |
27 |
13 - 51 |
170 |
260 |
|
AMS4 |
27 |
18 - 40 |
171 |
||
|
July 2014 |
AMS1 |
35 |
18 – 82 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
22 |
16 - 32 |
171 |
||
|
August 2014 |
AMS1 |
22 |
18 – 21 |
170 |
|
|
AMS4 |
24 |
15 - 42 |
171 |
||
4.2
According to our field observations, the major dust
source identified at the designated air quality monitoring stations in the
reporting period are as follows:
Table 4.3 Observation
at Dust Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring
Station |
Major Dust Source |
|
AMS1 |
Exhaust from
marine traffic |
|
AMS4 |
N/A |
4.3
The wind data monitoring results were attached in
the Monthly EM&A Reports
4.4
The noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 4.4. Graphical presentations of noise monitoring are shown in Appendix D.
Table 4.4 Summary Table of Noise Monitoring Results during the Reporting Period
|
Month |
Monitoring Station |
Noise Level, Leq (30min) dB(A) |
Limit Level |
|
|
Average |
Range |
|||
|
June 2014 |
NMS1 |
71 |
71 |
75 dB(A) |
|
NMS4 |
61 |
60 – 61 |
||
|
July 2014 |
NMS1 |
70 |
67 - 72 |
|
|
NMS4 |
60 |
56 – 61 |
||
|
August 2014 |
NMS1 |
71 |
70 - 72 |
|
|
NMS4 |
60 |
55 – 62 |
||
Remark: +3dB(A) Façade
correction included
4.5
According to our field observations, the major
noise source identified at the designated noise monitoring stations in the
reporting period are as follows:
Table
4.5 Observation at Noise Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring
Station |
Major Noise Source |
|
NMS1 |
Air traffic & marine traffic noise |
|
NMS4 |
Air traffic & marine traffic noise |
4.6
The graphical presentation of water quality at the
monitoring stations is shown in Appendix
E.
4.7
Water quality impact sources during the water
quality monitoring were the construction activities of the Contract, nearby
construction activities by other parties and near by
operating vessels by other parties.
Summary of
survey effort and dolphin sightings
4.8
During the
period of June to August 2014, six sets of systematic line-transect vessel
surveys were conducted to cover all transect lines in WL survey area twice per
month.
4.9
From these
surveys, a total of 189.86 km of survey effort was collected, with 90.5% of the total
survey effort being conducted under favourable
weather conditions (i.e. Beaufort Sea State 3 or below with good
visibility). The total
survey effort conducted on primary lines was 126.24 km, while
the effort on secondary lines was 63.62km.
Survey effort conducted on primary and secondary lines were both
considered as on-effort survey data. Summary table of the survey effort is shown
in Appendix I of Appendix F.
4.10
During the six sets of
monitoring surveys in June to August
2014, a total of 43 groups of 188 Chinese
White Dolphins were sighted. All except three sightings were made during on-effort search. Twenty-five on-effort sightings were made on primary lines, while
another 15 on-effort sightings were made on secondary lines. Summary
table of the dolphin sightings is shown in Appendix
II of Appendix F.
Distribution
4.11
Distribution
of dolphin sightings made during monitoring surveys in June to August 2014 is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix F. The dolphin
groups were evenly distributed throughout the WL survey area, with higher
concentrations near Fan Lau.
4.12
Sighting
distribution of dolphins in the present quarter was similar to the one during
the baseline period, with some subtle differences. There appeared to be fewer dolphins
sighted near Kai Kung Shan and more dolphins sighted near Fan Lau during the
present monitoring quarter when compared to the one during the baseline period.
4.13
Only one
dolphin sighting was made close to the HKLR09 alignment in WL survey area
during the present quarter (Figure 1 of Appendix F).
Encounter
rate
4.14
During the three-month
impact phase monitoring period, the encounter rates of Chinese White Dolphins
deduced from the survey effort and on-effort sighting data from the primary
transect lines under favourable conditions (Beaufort
3 or below) from West Lantau survey area are shown in
Table 4.6. The average encounter rates deduced from
the six sets of surveys from June to August
2014 were also compared with the ones
deduced from the baseline monitoring period (September – November 2011) (Table 4.7).
4.15
In WL survey
area, the average dolphin encounter rates (ER(STG) and ER(ANI)) in the present
three-month study period were both higher than the ones recorded in the three-month
baseline period (Table 4.7), indicating the dolphin usage during this
impact phase monitoring period in this survey area were more intensive when
compared to the baseline phase.
Table
4.6 Dolphin encounter rates
(sightings per 100 km of survey effort) during the impact monitoring period (June – August 2014)
|
Survey Area |
Dolphin Monitoring |
Encounter rate (STG) |
Encounter rate (ANI) |
|
Primary Lines Only |
Primary Lines Only |
||
|
West Lantau |
(June 06, 2014) |
28.9 |
115.7 |
|
Set 2
(June 09, 2014) |
4.7 |
9.5 |
|
|
Set 3 |
50.0 |
272.1 |
|
|
Set 4 |
24.4 |
131.5 |
|
|
Set 5 |
18.3 |
68.6 |
|
|
Set 6 |
11.1 |
11.1 |
Table
4.7 Comparison of
average dolphin encounter rates from impact monitoring period (June – August 2014) and baseline monitoring period
(September-November 2011)
|
|
(no. of on-effort dolphin
sightings per 100 km of survey effort) |
Encounter rate (ANI) (no. of dolphins from all on-effort sightings per 100 km of survey
effort) |
||
|
June-August 2014 |
September- November 2011 |
June-August 2014 |
September- November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
22.90 ± 15.88 |
16.43 ± 7.70 |
101.41 ± 97.90 |
60.50 ± 38.47 |
4.16
A one-way
ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were any significant differences
in the average encounter rates between the baseline and impact monitoring
periods. For the comparison between
the baseline period and the present quarter (sixth quarter of the impact
phase), the p-value for the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of
STG and ANI were 0.391 and 0.363 respectively. Therefore, no significant difference in
dolphin encounter rate was detected between the baseline period and the present
quarter.
4.17
Another
comparison was made between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the
impact phase (i.e. first six quarters of the impact phase), and the p-value for
the differences in average dolphin encounter rates of STG and ANI were 0.744
and 0.784 respectively. As a
result, no significant difference was found in the dolphin encounter rates
between the baseline period and the cumulative quarters in the impact phase.
4.18
To
facilitate the comparison with the AFCD long-term monitoring results, the encounter
rates were also calculated for the present quarter (June to August 2014) using
both primary and secondary survey effort.
The encounter rates of sightings (STG) and dolphins (ANI) in WL were
22.7 sightings and 104.2 dolphins per 100 km of survey effort respectively.
Group size
4.19
Group
size of Chinese White Dolphins ranged from 1-12 individuals per group in WL survey area
between June to August 2014.
The average dolphin group sizes from these three months were compared
with the one deduced from the baseline period in September to November 2011, as
shown in Table 4.8. The average dolphin group size in the WL
region during June to August 2014
was higher than the ones recorded in the 3-month baseline period (Table 4.8). About half of the dolphin groups were
composed of 1-3 dolphins, but
there were also 9 groups with more than 5 animals per group, and two groups with 10 animals or more per group.
Table
4.8 Comparison of
average dolphin group sizes from impact monitoring period (June – August 2014) and baseline monitoring period
(September-November 2011)
|
|
Average Dolphin Group Size |
|
|
June to August 2014 |
September – November 2011 |
|
|
West Lantau |
4.37 ±
2.78 (n = 43) |
3.63 ± 2.97 (n = 46) |
4.20
Distribution
of dolphins with the larger groups during June to August 2014
is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix F. These groups were evenly distributed
between Tai O Peninsula and Fan Lau, but were generally far away from the
HKLR09 alignment. This was quite different from the baseline period, when some
of the larger dolphin groups also occurred near Tai O Peninsula closer to the
bridge alignment (Figure 3 of Appendix F).
Habitat use
4.21
From
June
to August 2014, the most
heavily utilized habitats by the dolphins mainly concentrated near Tai O
Peninsula and Fan Lau (Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix
F). However, it should be noted that the
amount of survey effort collected in each grid during the three-month
period was fairly low (6 units of survey effort for most grids), and therefore
the habitat use pattern derived from the three-month dataset should be treated
with caution. A more complete
picture of dolphin habitat use pattern will be presented when more survey
effort for each grid will be collected throughout the impact phase monitoring programme.
4.22
When
compared with the habitat use pattern recorded during the baseline period, it
appears that dolphin densities were more evenly spread during the baseline
period than in the present impact phase monitoring period (Figure 5 of Appendix F). Moreover, dolphin densities appeared to be much higher near Fan Lau
during the present quarter than in the baseline period.
Mother-calf pairs
4.23
During
the three-month impact phase monitoring period, two unspotted calves and two
unspotted juveniles (UJ)
were sighted in WL survey area.
These young calves comprised 2.1% of all animals sighted, which was only one third of the
percentage recorded during the baseline monitoring period (6.6%).
4.24
The
rare occurrence of these young calves were located near Tai O Peninsula, off Peaked Hill and
near Fan Lau, which was in stark contrast to the baseline period when calf
occurrence was more concentrated near Tai O Peninsula (Figure 6 of Appendix F).
Activities and associations with fishing boats
4.25
A
total of three dolphin
sightings were associated with feeding activities near Tai O and Fan Lau (Figure 7 of Appendix F), comprising
of 7% of the total
number of dolphin sightings. This
percentage was much lower than
the percentage recorded during the baseline period (13.0%). Only two of the 43 sightings were associated with socializing activity near the Peaked Hill, while one group of five dolphins
were engaged in traveling activity during the present quarter (Figure 7 of Appendix F).
4.26
Apparently,
the distribution of these activities during the present impact phase monitoring
period was different from the one during the baseline period, with higher
concentration of these activities occurred between Tai O and Peaked Hill during
the baseline period (Figure 7 of Appendix F).
4.27
During the three-month period, none of the dolphin groups was associated
with an operating
fishing vessel.
Summary of photo-identification works
4.28
From
June
to August 2014, over 3,000 digital photographs of Chinese White
Dolphins were taken during the impact phase monitoring surveys for the photo-identification
work.
4.29
In
total, 62 individuals
sighted 81 times
altogether were identified (see summary table in Appendix III of Appendix F and photographs of identified individuals in Appendix IV of Appendix
F. The majority of identified individuals were sighted
only once or twice during the three-month period, but two individuals (WL46 and WL114) were
sighted thrice.
4.30
During
the three-month period, five recognizable females, including NL212, WL94, WL118, WL207 and WL224,
were sighted to be accompanied with their calf during her re-sighting.
Individual range use
4.31
Ranging
patterns of the 62 individuals identified during the three-month study period were
determined by fixed kernel method, and are shown in Appendix V of Appendix F.
4.32
Among
these 62 individuals, 17 of them (CH34, NL37, NL46, NL49,
NL98, NL136, NL139, NL150, NL213, NL261, NL262, NL295, NL300, NL308, WL04,
WL05, WL188) occurred primarily in North Lantau but ventured into West Lantau during the three-month period, while a few other
individuals (e.g. NL212, NL249, NL279 and WL46) split their time between North
and West Lantau waters. The other individuals centered their
range use primarily in West Lantau waters. (Appendix V of Appendix F)
4.33
For
those that regularly occurred in North Lantau waters,
they have extended their range use from there to West Lantau
waters, which could be a result of a range shift from North Lantau
waters. Such range shifts should be
continuously monitored in the upcoming quarters to determine whether these
range shifts are consistent for North Lantau
individuals and possibly related to the negative impacts of the HZMB-related
construction activities.
4.34
On
the other hand, for those that primarily used West Lantau
waters as their home ranges, it was apparent that almost all of them utilized
the southern part of their ranges, but seldom in the northern part of West Lantau, especially near the HKLR09 alignment where they
frequently occurred in the past.
Conclusion
4.35
During
this quarter of dolphin monitoring, no adverse impact from the activities of the
HKLR09 construction project on Chinese White Dolphins was noticeable from
general observations.
4.36
Nevertheless,
dolphin usage in WL region should be continuously monitored, to further examine
whether it has been affected by the on-going construction activities in
relation to the HZMB works.
4.37
Additional land-based dolphin behavior and movement
monitoring were conducted in the reporting period. The progress of the monitoring
is summarized in the Table 4.9.
Table
4.9 Progress
Record of Additional Land-based Dolphin Behaviour and
Movement Monitoring (June to August 2014)
|
Date |
Time |
Weather |
Number of Staff |
Number of Dolphin Sighting |
|
|
Beaufort |
Visibility |
||||
|
2014/6/3 |
09:27 - 14:38 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
2014/6/6 |
09:18 - 14:59 |
2-3 |
1.5 |
3 |
1 |
|
2014/7/11 |
09:25 - 14:49 |
2 |
1.5 |
3 |
3 |
|
2014/7/25 |
09:33 - 14:53 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
2014/8/22 |
09:24 - 14:45 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
2014/8/27 |
09:24 - 14:56 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4.38 Detailed
monitoring methodology and results will be provided in a separate report after
the completion of full set of additional land-based dolphin behavior and
movement monitoring.
4.39 The
Contractor was advised to minimize the wastes generated through the recycling
or reusing. All mitigation measures stipulated in approved waste management
plan shall be fully implemented.
4.40 The amount
of wastes generated by the activities of the Contract during the reporting month
is shown in Appendix J.